[almighty] (no subject)

Fri Sep 23 19:21:36 UTC 2016

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Leonard Dimaggio <ldimaggi at redhat.com>
wrote:

> +1 - yes! A short meeting/walkthrough will be much better than a long
> email thread!
>

Love the enthusiasm for the topic!

I hope you won't mind my case against a meeting here, Len. :)

* Email is public
* Email is auditable
* Writing down thoughts encourages organization and vetting of ideas before
they're expressed
* Email is asynchronous
* Email allows others who missed the even to contribute later

Meetings, while on the surface may appear convenient or quick, are a
synchronization point requiring everyone working independently and in
parallel to mindfully disengage from their work.  And it takes time to ramp
back up into a productive state.

We're still lacking some good public channels (realtime chat, threaded
feature-rich forums), but as a general rule I believe our position should
be:

  Do technical design and development discussions in public and writing by
default, and have a good reason to call a meeting.

Let's get Almighty to live open source!

S,
ALR

>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Monica Granfield <mgranfie at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Max brings up some great questions and issues. This is a great
>>> discussion. I know for me, from a UX perspective I have no idea which
>>> approach is the most useful and appropriate one. This functionality is
>>> fairly deep in the product. It seems like walking through these ideas and
>>> how they will work out up against use cases and what they are intended for,
>>> would be a useful exercise. There are some great ideas here, and because
>>> they are so foundational to the product. it seems like it would be useful
>>> to understand the workflows, use cases and how these ideas map to them and
>>> if they hold up or break and earlier for something deep like this is
>>> better. Would anyone be interested in this exercise?
>>
>>
>> - Monica
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:23:42 +0200
>>> From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse at redhat.com>
>>> To: "Michael Kleinhenz" <kleinhenz at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: ALMighty-public <almighty-public at redhat.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [almighty] Idea: modelling iterations
>>> Message-ID: <4D7F9683-A240-4B45-8E45-C54EAC46060E at redhat.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>>>
>>> On 22 Sep 2016, at 18:52, Michael Kleinhenz wrote:
>>>
>>> > Another possible model would be to have Iterations itself as a WIT.
>>> > Although this would require much more work on manage iterations (like,
>>> > create iteration would mean actual creation of a WI instead of just
>>> > attaching a label value). On the other hand, querying for iteration
>>> > contents could be simpler (by using query ops already there for
>>> > queries on WIs).
>>>
>>> I think this would be going too far IMO.
>>>
>>> Iterations and labels feels to me like things that warrants first class
>>> citizen and
>>> not just something encoded inside the generic work item.
>>>
>>> That said - I agree that things like iterations and other data that are
>>> used
>>> for grouping/categorizing should be as nice and light to use. Nothing
>>> worse
>>> having to do several clicks to just put something in a specific bucket
>>> when
>>> it could be done by typing a label/version/iteration etc. and have it
>>> created on the fly.
>>>
>>> My preference for anything use for categorisation/grouping is to
>>> allow defining strictly hierarchical taxonomies via a path like
>>> structure.
>>>
>>> i.e. Alpina/#116 and Banxia/#119 as iterations allowing to "encode"
>>> release train+sprint and
>>> ten be able to put issues into Alpina/#116 or Alpina dependent on what
>>> granualarity that makes
>>> sense.
>>>
>>> Same for areas/components/labels could be useful as hierarchies that can
>>> be created on the fly
>>> or if a project chooses "locked" down.
>>>
>>> Now writing through these one could maybe just have a "Categorisation
>>> type"
>>>    and "Categorisation" and say work items can have fields of type
>>> "Categorization".
>>>
>>> i.e. Areas, Components, Labels, Iterations, ...
>>>
>>> And these have name, (optional) description, (optional) time frame
>>> (start/stop).
>>>
>>> Initially I would probably limit users access to customize the category
>>> types, but
>>> it seems like it would be interesting to model these categorisation
>>> fields in a similar manner
>>> and then at the UI/UX layer visualise them what fits best for them.
>>>
>>> Hope that makes sense ;)
>>> WDYT ?
>>>
>>> /max
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Michael Kleinhenz
>>> > <kleinhenz at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't know if core already has iterations in place with it's core
>>> >> model. If not, would it be a good idea to model the iterations with
>>> >> labels (or tags or keywords, whatever it can be called)?
>>> >>
>>> >> This would generalize the concept of wi-to-iteration mappings to a
>>> >> more generic approach and would possibly enable much more flexibility
>>> >> with different planning approaches (like, Scrum 4.0 in 2033 ;-).
>>> >>
>>> >> An iteration mapping would then just be a special case of label.
>>> >>
>>> >> See GMail as a very similar case: generalizing the concept of folders
>>> >> (mail-to-folder mapping) to labels, enabling lot's of interesting
>>> >> usecases.
>>> >>
>>> >> -- Michael
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Michael Kleinhenz
>>> >> Principal Software Engineer
>>> >>
>>> >> Red Hat Deutschland GmbH
>>> >> Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14
>>> >> 85630 Grasbrunn
>>> >> Germany
>>> >>
>>> >> RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
>>> >> Red Hat GmbH, www.de.redhat.com,
>>> >> Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht
>>> >> M?nchen,
>>> >> HRB 153243,
>>> >> Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
>>> >> Michael O'Neill
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Michael Kleinhenz
>>> > Principal Software Engineer
>>> >
>>> > Red Hat Deutschland GmbH
>>> > Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14
>>> > 85630 Grasbrunn
>>> > Germany
>>> >
>>> > RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
>>> > Red Hat GmbH, www.de.redhat.com,
>>> > Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht M?nchen,
>>> > HRB 153243,
>>> > Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
>>> > Michael O'Neill
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > almighty-public mailing list
>>> > almighty-public at redhat.com
>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public
>>>
>>>
>>> /max
>>> http://about.me/maxandersen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:06:32 -0400
>>> From: Andrew Lee Rubinger <alr at redhat.com>
>>> To: Adam Jolicoeur <ajolicoe at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: ALMighty-public <almighty-public at redhat.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [almighty] User Experience for Almighty
>>> Message-ID:
>>>         <CABm567E1+5Nd5CatWKsZG8nwU=C64iv51JBSDUMEBFOtwzqKow at mail.gm
>>> ail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Adam Jolicoeur <ajolicoe at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Good Morning (or Afternoon or Evening),
>>> >
>>> > As a follow up to the F2F last week, the UXD Team (specifically Monica
>>> and
>>> > I) have created an almighty-ux repo on GitHub under
>>> almighty/almighty-ux.
>>> > We will be tracking issues there, as well as Sprint milestones and work
>>> > items that correspond to UI development efforts. If there are
>>> discussion
>>> > items that anyone would like to post (other than on this mailing
>>> list), you
>>> > can create an issue under this repo, with the label ?discussion?. We?ll
>>> > monitor what is posted and prioritize as necessary.
>>> >
>>> > Regarding wireframes/mockups and other documentation, a UX directory
>>> has
>>> > been added to the almighty-devdoc repo. Any information will also be
>>> > displayed on devdoc.almighty.io under ?ux designs
>>> > <http://devdoc.almighty.io/ux/ux-overview.html>?. Feel free to visit
>>> this
>>> > area for design references and information. Many times, it will just be
>>> > links to our InVision prototypes, but we will also include (in the
>>> future)
>>> > persona information, research and notes.
>>> >
>>>
>>> My applause for this effort!
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Any questions? Let us know!
>>> >
>>> > Thanks!
>>> > Adam Jolicoeur
>>> >
>>> > ----------
>>> > Adam J. Jolicoeur
>>> > Interaction Designer
>>> > Red Hat Inc.
>>> > Email: adam.jolicoeur at redhat.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > almighty-public mailing list
>>> > almighty-public at redhat.com
>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Red Hat Developer Programs Architecture
>>> @ALRubinger
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments
>>> /20160923/f0cb6cd2/attachment.html>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> almighty-public mailing list
>>> almighty-public at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public
>>>
>>>
>>> End of almighty-public Digest, Vol 5, Issue 41
>>> **********************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> almighty-public mailing list
>> almighty-public at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Len DiMaggio (ldimaggi at redhat.com)
> JBoss by Red Hat
> 314 Littleton Road
> Westford, MA 01886  USA
> tel:  978.392.3179
> cell: 781.472.9912
> http://www.redhat.com
> http://community.jboss.org/people/ldimaggio
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> almighty-public mailing list
> almighty-public at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/almighty-public
>
>

-- 
Red Hat Developer Programs Architecture
@ALRubinger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20160923/ea696d58/attachment.htm>